Le lambeau myo-muqueux de buccinateur en îlot: indications et limites dans la reconstruction des pertes de substance de la cavité buccale et de l'oropharynx
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To outline the indications and limits of the myo-mucosal buccinator island flap based on the facial artery in the reconstruction of deficits of the buccal cavity and lateral wall of the oropharynx following oncologic resection or radionecrosis. METHOD: We retrospectively studied 40 patients. Flap is raised using a modified technique without Doppler or skin incision to identify the facial artery. This study identifies causes for failure and limits and indications for this flap. RESULTS: We found a failure rate of 10% and an identical fistula rate. On the other hand success rate is over 95% when (1) permeability of the artery is confirmed preoperatively in post-neck dissection or post-radiation therapy patients and (2) the deficit does not cross the midline. CONCLUSION: The myo-mucosal buccinator flap is a reliable technique. When specific indications are followed and the flap raised appropriately, the succes rate is 95%.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".